pwhodges wrote:How much unfairness do you judge to be OK meanwhile? Would your view change if it happened to affect you personally?

It already has; because I understand I don't use internet data rates at levels necessary for me to have the same speeds as business class in my area.

Streaming is high-demand, but it's far more tolerant of latency (thanks to buffering) compared to what businesses do, who need most things done in real-time. It makes sense that the latter gets priority.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Honestly, we just don't have any laws that fully realize what the internet is and what its full potential can be. Net Neutrality is a solid temporary fix,

I disagree; the true dysfunction is municipal, so the fix is a movement for municipal reform. Reform of Government should matter more than setting rules meant to correct for obstructive law.

Given the performance gap that will widen between cities who embrace this and those who don't; the race to pressure cities into this is not only probable, but guaranteed.

"It's all fun and games till one of you gets my foot up your ass." - FofR, TrivialBeing.net Webmaster

Why not both? Why not Net Neutrality and municipal reform to correct the last mile issues at the same time? Everyone still hates Comcast and Verizon, so it’s not like there’s no impetus for competition with NN in place; NN didn’t stop Google from spreading their fiber and hasn’t stopped Elon Musl and others from discussing other wide broadband access tech.

What is your argument for removing a coherent policy that protects people’s access to the Internet, which is essential for living and commerce? You can dress it up in fancy terminology all you like but far all you’ve said is that NN should be repealed and we should hope that municipalities fix the problem themselves, which is hilariously ignorant of the political realities that created and perpetuate these problems in the first place.

Also, insist all you like, but while he last mile issue is a municipal one, the overall issue is one of interstate commerce, which the federal government is in place to regulate. We keep talking about the impact on individuals here but just as bad if not worse is the threat NN repeal poses to startup businesses.

By establishing fast lanes the telecoms can sell the existing Bog Tech giants the ability to squeeze out all competition. The next Amazon, Netflix, etc won’t get off the ground because the existing ones can buy an artifical limit to competition. Net Neutrality, besides giving ISPs free reign to hamstring consumer access, gives them carte blanche to sell monopoly power to existing budinesses.

Besides stifling competition for their own services, which they’ve repeatedly tried to do, they now hold the keys to the economic kingdom of the future. NN repeal is a massive recession, even depression, waiting to happen. It’s not taking place in a vacuum, either, as it’s coupled with other disastrous economic policy.

Hope for the best or let the market sort it out isn’t a plan. The market isn’t going to sort it out. The existing oligopopoly will continue to bully and bribe to maintain the status quo with regards to last mile cable and infrastructure.

It’s completely irrational to know what it takes the solve the problem and aggressively insist on doing nothing, hoping that people will just spontaneously do the right thing, and damn the cost to people who live in corrupt municipalities and can’t afford to move (and forget about people in rural areas entirely which we haven’t talked about at all).

If we actually governed by this ludicrous ideology we’d have no Hoover Dam and no electricity or phone service in most of the United States. Refusal to just suck it up and form a coherent policy at the national level for purely ideological reasons is why we’re lagging behind the developed world in a technology that was developed here.

Instead we’re saddled with the ideology that government doesn’t work and its proponents who, when they attain power, set out to prove it.

the prophecy is trueThe wish for respectability, observed spiritual teacher Jiddu Krishnamurti, is the greatest deterrent to selfhood and progress.

Because Net neutrality pretends non-neutral behavior is always wrong, when it isn't. Supporting it is a headwind to the industry developing itself; decreasing the pace that technology & services are created.

It misunderstands entirely that a use case exists for non-neutral practices.

When it comes to the basis of merit, this policy lacks terribly. It also misunderstands how civil power itself should be approached.

And hell, even if it was to be approached this way; it should be at at the State Level, and emphasizing tearing down regulatory barriers to market entry. Like when Texas reformed its permitting system to just one for ISPs to apply for that would work anywhere in the State. Ergo, cities could no longer use operating permits as a means to obstruct competition for the sitting incumbents.

"It's all fun and games till one of you gets my foot up your ass." - FofR, TrivialBeing.net Webmaster

Alaska Slim wrote:It misunderstands entirely that a use case exists for non-neutral practices.

Not at all. There is indeed unequal handling of traffic using different protocols, through the mechanism known as QoS - Quality of Service. This is what enables streaming and VoIP to work reasonably well within constrained bandwidth. This is entirely different from treating the traffic of different companies differently purely on the basis of who they are or what they pay you.

The Internet is best seen as a common carrier - a resource for everyone. Would you suggest that, for instance, telcos should have the opportunity to prohibit the sending of faxes over a telephone line without extra payment? If not, then why the equivalent on the Internet?

Last edited by pwhodges on Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alaska Slim wrote:Because Net neutrality pretends non-neutral behavior is always wrong, when it isn't. Supporting it is a headwind to the industry developing itself; decreasing the pace that technology & services are created.

It misunderstands entirely that a use case exists for non-neutral practices.

When it comes to the basis of merit, this policy lacks terribly. It also misunderstands how civil power itself should be approached.

And hell, even if it was to be approached this way; it should be at at the State Level, and emphasizing tearing down regulatory barriers to market entry. Like when Texas reformed its permitting system to just one for ISPs to apply for that would work anywhere in the State. Ergo, cities could no longer use operating permits as a means to obstruct competition for the sitting incumbents.

Are you going to address the issue of ISPs using payment for higher speed to sell large existing businesses the ability to crush competition at all or keep going on about hypotheticals and and theories without addressing the direct negative effects on real people that your policy would have?

You’re still rehashing the same argument over and over and treating the municipal reform aspect as an either-or with Net Neutrality and ignoring my key question, why we can’t just enforce the solution if we know what it is rather than let the economy decline hoping that an unregulated market will sufficiently punish people into the action you want when they have every ability and incentive to make it worse. Or for that matter, why we can’t have NN and municipal reform at once.

You’re also saying we should tear down regulatory barriers to market entry —which is true— but you’re subtly conflating all regulation with barriers to entry and ignoring the very clear and obvious danger of the existing businesses creating barriers to entry, which they are both fully capable of doing and have a track record of attempting.

You’re good at phrasing your arguments about them tonsoibd convincing but they still really on a number of unstated givens that, once pulled out into the light, are ridiculous.

Your arguments only work when you cherry pick, ignore the parts you don’t like, gloss over the consequences for actual human beings, and ignore history and precedent.

the prophecy is trueThe wish for respectability, observed spiritual teacher Jiddu Krishnamurti, is the greatest deterrent to selfhood and progress.

Chuckman wrote:Your arguments only work when you cherry pick, [and] gloss over the consequences for actual human beings

This is particularly apparent in the focus on the benefits to companies - always companies. I suppose you must believe that in some way what is good for companies is good for humans in general, but this really only applies (looking at the facts) if you limit "humans" to "shareholders and executives".

Of course, companies are good to the extent that they are necessary, but once they get large enough to lose touch with the impulses (in the past, at least, typically local ones) that caused them to be created, then we start to see this distortion of their original purposes into restrictive money-making machines for whom whatever good they still do in society remains only as a by-product.

The Internet has shown this tendency up in stark relief, both because of its speed of development, and also because of the opportunity it has given for companies to be created with no original local base at all. Sufficient regulation to rein in the worst aspects of company growth might help to resist the Internet itself turning into the very worst manifestation of heartless capitalism.

Many, many fake comments were sent to the FCC in support of repeal. Among these fake comments is the one linked above, in which Barack Obama, late of Pennsylvania Avenue, criticizes the regulatory overreach of the Obama Administration.

the prophecy is trueThe wish for respectability, observed spiritual teacher Jiddu Krishnamurti, is the greatest deterrent to selfhood and progress.

pwhodges wrote:Not at all. There is indeed unequal handling of traffic using different protocols, through the mechanism known as QoS - Quality of Service. This is what enables streaming and VoIP to work reasonably well within constrained bandwidth. This is entirely different from treating the traffic of different companies differently purely on the basis of who they are or what they pay you.

Still not wrong, because needs differ. Consumers differ in what latency their data rate can tolerate vs what businesses can, and the needs of businesses differ within themselves. (upload speeds tend to be the biggest difference here).

Asking for real-time performance, that keeps bit rates going at a "x" decimal point, if that puts a disproportional strain on the infrastructure, it isn't unreasonable to ask for more to provide it.

"It's all fun and games till one of you gets my foot up your ass." - FofR, TrivialBeing.net Webmaster

Well, now it has to go to the House of Representatives, where they need signatures from a majority of attendees before they can even vote on it, and then (if it passes the House) to Trump's desk, where it almost certainly will be vetoed because it was an Obama-era policy and we can't have nice things.

The best thing that this can do is serve as a policy point for Democrats going into the 2018 midterm elections. All 49 Dems in the Senate voted for this and they got 3 Republican defectors to put them over the finish line, 2 of which were the usual suspects who have voted with the Dems before (Collins-ME and Murkowski-AK) and surprisingly John Kennedy out of Louisiana.

Knowing how popular Net Neutrality is with citizens, it's going to be valuable to know where and how each of these politicians voted in the Senate and House, so hopefully, this will energize the Democratic base even more in areas where there are flippable Republican Senate seats up in November, like Nevada and potentially Arizona and Texas.

Among the people who use the Internet, many are obtuse. Because they are locked in their rooms, they hang on to that vision which is spreading across the world. But this does not go beyond mere ‘data’. Data without analysis [thinking], which makes you think that you know everything. This complacency is nothing but a trap. Moreover, the sense of values that counters this notion is paralyzed by it.

Among the people who use the Internet, many are obtuse. Because they are locked in their rooms, they hang on to that vision which is spreading across the world. But this does not go beyond mere ‘data’. Data without analysis [thinking], which makes you think that you know everything. This complacency is nothing but a trap. Moreover, the sense of values that counters this notion is paralyzed by it.

Mr. Tines wrote:So still write your MEPs on this one, if you're stuck in the EUSSR.

Writing the strangers whom I cannot repay for doing me a favor. Are you 60 or 16? Or rather you are completely clueless about what USSR was? Then do me a favor: when the law in question is enacted, organize a strike against it and get shot. I'll do you a favor too and won't piss on your grave.

Still seriously, don't use slogans you don't understand, or you'll run out of them fast when things go bad, but seriously bad. If you're not a far-right madcap, don't pretend to be one.

In my spirit lies my faithStronger than love and with me it will beFor always- Mike Wyzgowski & Sagisu Shiro